“Voice of first U.S. Hispanic justice heard in major race case”: Joan Biskupic of Reuters has this report.

“OK, Michigan Can Ban Affirmative Action: But does that really mean race no longer matters, as the Supreme Court’s conservatives say?” Emily Bazelon has this jurisprudence essay online at Slate.

“Argument analysis: Thirty years later, ‘1984’ is still scary.” Lyle Denniston has this post at “SCOTUSblog.”

“Justices Skeptical of Aereo’s Business”: Adam Liptak will have this article in Wednesday’s edition of The New York Times.

In Wednesday’s edition of The Los Angeles Times, David G. Savage will have an article headlined “Supreme Court justices appear conflicted over Aereo copyright case; A ruling could shut down Aereo, as the TV broadcast industry wants, or clear the way for the company that enables subscribers to record programs captured over the air and view them on the Internet.”

In Wednesday’s edition of The Wall Street Journal, Brent Kendall will have an article headlined “Supreme Court Conflicted on Legality of Aereo Online Video Service; Justices Said a Ruling Against the Cloud-Based Service Threatened to Harm Established Services, Such as Apple’s iCloud.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Broadcast TV, cloud computing collide at Supreme Court.”

At the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Eriq Gardner has a post titled “Aereo at the Supreme Court: Justices Confused by Technology, Wary of Implications ; At oral arguments on Tuesday, broadcasters appear to have an edge, but the justices want to know how their ruling will impact others in the tech sector.”

Joe Mullin of Ars Technica has an article headlined “At oral arguments, Supreme Court isn’t sold on Aereo; Court shows concern about the cloud, but not about the right to free TV.”

Alison Frankel’s “On the Case” from Thomson Reuters News & Insight has a report headlined “At Aereo arguments, can old-school analogies explain new technology?”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: Slipping down the digital slope.”

“Atheists’ new plan of attack against Pledge of Allegiance: state courts; An atheist New Jersey family is saying the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance is a violation of their equal protection under state law; Previously, such lawsuits were filed in federal court.” The Christian Science Monitor has this report.

“Supreme Court rules anonymous tip is enough to stop driver”: Bob Egelko of The San Francisco Chronicle has this report.

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times reports that “Supreme Court upholds California police search based on 911 tip.”

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Anonymous tip leading to driver’s arrest passes Supreme Court muster.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Opinion analysis: Big new role for anonymous tipsters.”

“Argument analysis: Justices skeptical of Coke’s right to ‘cheat consumers.'” Ronald Mann has this post today at “SCOTUSblog.”

“One man’s obsession with EPA and toxic waste in his neighborhood leads all the way to the Supreme Court”: Jeremy P. Jacobs of Greenwire has this report.

“Judges Consider What Defines Insider Trading”: Christopher M. Matthews has this post at WSJ.com’s “Law Blog.”

“Curative plea challenging SC verdict against gay sex to be heard in open court next week”: Press Trust of India has this report.

And BuzzFeed reports that “Indian Supreme Court To Reconsider Sodomy Ruling; ‘This is a bit of hope,’ said one of the lawyers in a case.”

“Gang member shot, killed after lunging at court witness”: This front page article appears today in The Deseret News, along with a front page article headlined “From prep football to prison, gang life led to destructive path.”

Today’s edition of The Salt Lake Tribune contains a front page article headlined “Gang defendant shot, killed at new Salt Lake City federal courthouse; U.S. marshal shot defendant when he charged witness with a sharp object.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Courthouse violence unpredictable despite security.”

“Keystone Route Ruling Should Be Overturned, Nebraska Says”: Bloomberg News has this report.

“High court hears streaming TV case”: Mark Sherman of The Associated Press has this report.

Greg Stohr and Alex Barinka of Bloomberg News report that “Aereo Online-TV Service Questioned by U.S. Supreme Court.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. justices conflicted over Aereo TV copyright fight.”

And Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Broadcast TV, cloud computing collide at Supreme Court.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in American Broadcasting Co. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 13-461.

“Court critical of Ohio law punishing campaign lies”: The Associated Press has this report.

And Joan Biskupic of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court hears challenge to ban on ‘false’ campaign speech.”

You can access at this link the transcript of today’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 13-193.

“The Most Overrated Supreme Court Justice”: Law professor Cass R. Sunstein has this essay online today at Bloomberg View.

“Supreme Court Upholds Michigan’s Affirmative Action Ban”: Adam Liptak of The New York Times has this news update.

Robert Barnes and William Branigin of The Washington Post have a news update headlined “Supreme Court reverses decision that tossed out Michigan’s ban on racial preferences.”

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court upholds Michigan ban on affirmative action.”

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices approve state bans on affirmative action; The decision could lead more states to enact bans against race preferences in university admissions, but it does not affect university affirmative action programs in other states.”

Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal has a news update headlined “High Court Says States Can End Affirmative Action Without Violating Constitution; In 6-2 Vote, Justices Decide Michigan Can End Rule at Public Universities.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Michael Doyle of McClatchy Washington Bureau reports that “Divided Supreme Court upholds Michigan measure banning race-based preferences.”

Tom Howell Jr. of The Washington Times has a news update headlined “Supreme Court upholds Mich. affirmative action ban.”

The Detroit Free Press has a news update headlined “Supreme Court upholds Michigan’s ban on affirmative action.”

The Detroit News has an update headlined “High court’s Michigan ruling another affirmative action setback.”

The Ann Arbor News reports that “U.S. Supreme Court upholds Michigan’s ban on affirmative action in college admissions.”

The Michigan Daily, the student newspaper of the University of Michigan, has a news update headlined “Supreme Court upholds state’s affirmative action ban.”

At “The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times,” Tony Mauro has a post titled “Michigan Ban on Affirmative Action Upheld by Supreme Court.”

And at the “School Law” blog of Education Week, Mark Walsh has a post titled “Justices Uphold Michigan Ballot Ban on Race Preferences in Higher Ed.”

“Supreme Court to Consider Challenge to Law Against Lying in Elections”: Jess Bravin has this article in today’s edition of The Wall Street Journal. You can freely access the full text of the article via Google. In addition, at WSJ.com’s “Washington Wire” blog, Bravin has a post titled “Ohio AG DeWine Defends And Questions False-Statements Law.”

Jack Torry of The Columbus Dispatch reports that “Ohio election-ad fight to be heard by U.S. Supreme Court.”

The Cincinnati Enquirer reports that “SCOTUS hears local free speech case Tuesday.”

Paige Winfield Cunningham of Politico.com reports that “Abortion at heart of Ohio speech case.”

National Journal reports that “Anti-Obamacare Ad Lands at the Supreme Court; A billboard opposing the health care law touched off a potentially major First Amendment case.”

And at msnbc, Adam Serwer has a report headlined “Lying in politics not a crime?”

“Supreme Court to decide on Aereo, an obscure start-up that could reshape the TV industry”: Cecilia Kang and Robert Barnes have this article today in The Washington Post.

The Los Angeles Times reports that “Aereo fights for future before the Supreme Court; On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments from the Internet TV start-up and the broadcasters that oppose it; The results could have major implications for the future of television.”

Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has an article headlined “Aereo Internet service vs. TV broadcasters: US Supreme Court to decide; Aereo provides TV viewing and recording to subscribers via the Internet for $8 a month; But Aereo pays major broadcast companies nothing, and broadcasters say that violates copyright protections.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “Streaming TV case before Supreme Court on Tuesday.”

At “The Note” blog of ABC News, Ariane de Vogue has a post titled “Aereo Case at the Supreme Court: What’s at Stake?”

Brooks Boliek of Politico.com has a report headlined “Supreme Court case: Startup vs. broadcasters.”

At the “Hollywood, Esq.” blog of The Hollywood Reporter, Jonathan Handel has a post titled “Aereo Backstory: One Supreme Court Case, Three Recusals, One ‘Unrecusal,’ Much Uncertainty; Seldom (one imagines) has one case involved so many questions of judicial and attorney disqualification.”

And at Wired.com, Issie Lapowsky has an article headlined “Netflix Is the Real Winner if the Supreme Court Sides With Aereo.”

“Matawan-Aberdeen school district sued over ‘under God’ in pledge; Lawsuit claims wording alienates atheists, humanists and violates N.J. constitution”: This article appears today in The Asbury Park Press.

And The Associated Press reports that “New Jersey school sued over ‘under God’ in pledge.”

“No stopping Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg”: Columnist Dana Milbank of The Washington Post has this op-ed.

Access online today’s rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in argued cases: The Court today issued rulings in two argued cases.

1. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court in Prado Navarette v. California, No. 12-9490. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. You can access the oral argument via this link.

2. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced the judgment of the Court and issued an opinion, in which Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Samuel A. Alito, Jr. joined, in Schuette v. BAMN, No. 12-682. Chief Justice Roberts issued a concurring opinion. Justice Scalia issued an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Stephen G Breyer issued an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Kagan did not participate in the decision. You can access the oral argument audio via this link.

In early news coverage, The Associated Press reports that “High court upholds Mich affirmative action ban” and “Court upholds traffic stop based on anonymous tip.”

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Michigan Affirmative Action Ban Upheld by U.S. High Court.”

And Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “Supreme Court upholds Michigan affirmative action ban.”

“Supreme Court Weighs Aid to Holders of Argentine Debt”: Adam Liptak has this article today in The New York Times.

Richard Wolf of USA Today reports that “Justices shed few tears for Argentina in debt case.”

Brent Kendall of The Wall Street Journal has an article headlined “U.S. Supreme Court Voices Resistance to Argentina Blocking Creditor’s Access to Asset Records; Creditor NML Capital Opted Against Participating in Argentina’s Debt Restructuring.” You can freely access the full text of the article via Google.

Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News reports that “Argentina Gets U.S. Court Skepticism on Bank Subpoenas.”

Lawrence Hurley of Reuters reports that “U.S. court signals narrow bondholders win in Argentina subpoena case.”

Mark Sherman of The Associated Press reports that “US justices seek middle ground in Argentina case.”

And at “SCOTUSblog,” Lyle Denniston has a post titled “Argument analysis: The problem when a pitfall opens.”

You can access at this link the transcript of yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court oral argument in Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital Ltd., No. 12-842.

“Supreme Court seems inclined to bolster truth-in-labeling laws; High court justices take a dim view of Coca-Cola’s selling juice labeled as pomegranate-blueberry that is mostly apple and grape juice”: David G. Savage has this article today in The Los Angeles Times.

“Should Supreme Court Justices Play Politics With Retirement?” Jesse Wegman has this post at the “Taking Note” blog of The New York Times.

“Oklahoma Supreme Court stays executions of two inmates; The executions of Clayton Derrell Lockett, 38, and Charles Frederick Warner, 46, have been postponed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court; The stays will last until a case about the source of the state’s lethal injection drugs is fully adjudicated”: This front page article appears in today’s edition of The Oklahoman.

Today’s edition of The Tulsa World contains a front page article headlined “Oklahoma Supreme Court delays executions of two inmates suing state; The 5-4 decision grants a stay to inmates suing over the state’s lethal-drug secrecy law.”

In today’s edition of The New York Times, Erik Eckholm has an article headlined “2 Executions in Oklahoma Are Stayed, Ending Tussle.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Oklahoma court puts 2 executions on hold.”

You can access yesterday’s 5-to-4 ruling of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma at this link.